brand equity

Bahan Kuliah Manajemen Pemasaran. Menurut Susanto dan Wijanarko (2004), dalam menghadapi persaingan yang ketat, merek yang kuat merupakan suatu pembeda yang jelas, bernilai, dan berkesinambungan, berkesinambungan, menjadi ujung tombak bagi daya saing perusahaan dan sangat membantu dalam strategi pemasaran (p. 2). Keller (1993) juga menyatakan bahwa brand equity adalah keinginan dari seseorang untuk melanjutkan menggunakan suatu brand atau tidak. Pengukuran dari brand equity sangatlah berhubungan kuat dengan kesetiaan k esetiaan dan bagian pengukuran dari pengguna baru menjadi pengguna yang setia (p. 43). Beberapa pengertian brand equity adalah: 1. Susanto dan Wijanarko (2004), ekuitas merek adalah seperangkat aset dan liabilitas merek yang berkaitan dengan suatu merek, nama dan simbolnya, yang menambah atau mengurangi nilai yang diberikan oleh suatu barang atau jasa kepada perusahaan atau pelanggan (p. 127). 2. East (1997), “Brand equity or brand strength is the control on purchase exerted by a brand, and, by virtue of this, the brand as an asset that can be exploited to produce revenue” (p. 29). Artinya ekuitas merek atau kekuatan merek adalah kontrol dari pembelian dengan menggunakan merek, dan, kebaikan dari merek, merek sebagai aset yang dapat dimanfaatkan untuk menghasilkan pendapatan. 3. Kotler dan Armstrong (2004), “Brand equity is the positive differential effect that knowing the brand name has on customer response to the product or service” (p. 292). Artinya ekuitas merek adalah efek diferensiasi yang positif yang dapat diketahui dari respon konsumen terhadap barang atau jasa.  Jadi brand equity adalah kekuatan suatu brand yang dapat menambah atau mengurangi mengurangi nilai dari brand itu sendiri yang dapat diketahui dari respon konsumen terhadap barang atau jasa yang dijual. Menurut Soehadi (2005), kekuatan suatu merek (brand equity) dapat diukur berdasarkan 7 indikator, yaitu: 1. Leadership: kemampuan untuk mempengaruhi pasar, baik harga maupun atribut non-harga. 2. Stability: kemampuan untuk mempertahankan loyalitas pelanggan. 3. Market: kekuatan merek untuk meningkatkan kinerja toko atau distributor. distributor. 4. Internationality: kemampuan merek untuk keluar dari area geografisnya atau masuk ke negara atau daerah lain. 5. Trend: merek menjadi semakin penting dalam industri. 6. Support: besarnya dana yang dikeluarkan untuk mengkomunikasikan merek. 7. Protection: merek tersebut mempunyai legalitas (p. 147). Menurut Susanto dan Wijanarko (2004) yang mengadaptasi mengadaptasi teori Aaker, brand equity dapat dikelompokkan ke dalam 5 kategori: a. Brand awareness Beberapa pengertian brand awareness adalah sebagai berikut: ° Brand awareness adalah kesanggupan seorang calon pembeli untuk mengenali

atau mengingat kembali bahwa suatu merek merupakan bagian dari kategori merek tertentu. ° Menurut East (1997), “Brand awareness is the recognition and recall of a brand and its differentiation from other brands in the field” (p. 29). Artinya brand awareness adalah pengakuan dan pengingatan dari sebuah merek dan pembedaan dari merek yang lain yang ada di lapangan.  Jadi brand awareness adalah kemampuan konsumen untuk mengingat suatu brand dan yang menjadikannya berbeda bila dibandingkan dengan brand lainnya. Ada 4 tingkatan brand awareness yaitu: 1. Unaware of brand (tidak menyadari merek) Merupakan tingkat yang paling rendah dalam piramida kesadaran merek, dimana konsumen tidak menyadari akan adanya suatu merek. 2. Brand recognition (pengenalan merek)  Tingkat minimal dari kesadaran merek. Hal ini penting pada saat seorang pembeli memilih suatu merek pada saat melakukan pembelian. 3. Brand recall (pengingatan (pengingatan kembali terhadap merek) Pengingatan kembali terhadap merek didasarkan pada permintaan seseorang untuk menyebutkan merek tertentu dalam suatu kelas produk. Hal ini diistilahkan dengan pengingatan kembali tanpa bantuan, karena berbeda dari tugas pengenalan, responden tidak perlu dibantu untuk memunculkan memunculkan merek tersebut. 4. Top of mind (puncak pikiran) Apabila seseorang ditanya secara langsung tanpa diberi bantuan pengingatan dan orang tersebut dapat menyebutkan satu nama merek, maka merek yang paling banyak disebutkan pertama kali merupakan puncak pikiran. Dengan kata lain, merek tersebut merupakan merek utama dari berbagai merek yang ada di dalam benak konsumen. Ada 4 indikator yang dapat digunakan untuk mengetahui seberapa jauh konsumen aware terhadap sebuah brand antara lain: 1. Recall yaitu seberapa jauh konsumen dapat mengingat ketika ditanya merek apa saja yang diingat. 2. Recognition yaitu seberapa jauh konsumen dapat mengenali merek tersebut termasuk dalam kategori tertentu. 3. Purchase yaitu seberapa jauh konsumen akan memasukkan suatu merek ke dalam alternatif pilihan ketika akan membeli produk/layanan. produk/layanan. 4. Consumption yaitu seberapa jauh konsumen masih mengingat suatu merek ketika sedang menggunakan produk/layanan pesaing. b. Perceived quality Didefinisikan Didefinisikan sebagai persepsi pelanggan terhadap keseluruhan kualitas atau keunggulan suatu produk atau jasa berkenaan dengan maksud yang diharapkan. c. Brand association association Adalah sesuatu yang berkaitan dengan ingatan mengenai sebuah produk.

Asosiasi ini tidak hanya eksis, namun juga memiliki suatu tingkat kekuatan. Keterikatan pada suatu merek akan lebih kuat apabila dilandasi pada banyak pengalaman atau penampakan untuk mengkomunikasikannya. d. Brand loyalty Merupakan ukuran kesetiaan seorang pelanggan pada sebuah merek. Loyalitas memiliki tingkatan sebagaimana dapat dilihat pada gambar di bawah ini: 1. Tingkat loyalitas yang paling dasar adalah pembeli tidak loyal atau sama sekali tidak tertarik pada merek-merek apapun yang ditawarkan. Dengan demikian, merek memainkan peran yang kecil dalam keputusan pembelian. Pada umumnya, jenis konsumen seperti ini suka berpindah-pindah merek atau disebut tipe konsumen switcher atau price buyer (konsumen lebih memperhatikan harga di dalam melakukan pembelian). 2. Tingkat kedua adalah para pembeli merasa puas dengan produk yang digunakan, atau minimal tidak mengalami kekecewaan. Pada dasarnya, tidak terdapat dimensi ketidakpuasan yang cukup memadai untuk mendorong suatu perubahan, terutama apabila pergantian ke merek lain memerlukan suatu tambahan biaya. Para pembeli tipe ini dapat disebut pembeli tipe kebiasaan (habitual buyer). 3. Tingkat ketiga berisi orang-orang yang puas, namun memikul biaya peralihan (switching cost), baik dalam waktu, uang atau resiko sehubungan dengan upaya untuk melakukan pergantian ke merek lain. Kelompok ini biasanya disebut dengan konsumen loyal yang merasakan adanya suatu pengorbanan apabila melakukan penggantian ke merek lain. Para pembeli tipe ini disebut satisfied buyer. 4. Tingkat keempat adalah konsumen benar-benar menyukai merek tersebut. Pilihan konsumen terhadap suatu merek dilandasi pada suatu asosiasi, seperti simbol, rangkaian pengalaman dalam menggunakannya, atau kesan kualitas yang tinggi. Para pembeli pada tingkat ini disebut sahabat merek, karena terdapat perasaan emosional dalam menyukai merek. 5. Tingkat teratas adalah para pelanggan yang setia. Para pelanggan mempunyai suatu kebanggaan dalam menemukan atau menjadi pengguna suatu merek. Merek tersebut sangat penting bagi pelanggan baik dari segi fungsinya, maupun sebagai ekspresi mengenai siapa pelanggan sebenarnya(commited buyers). e. Other proprietary brand assets Adalah hal-hal lain yang tidak termasuk dalam 4 kategori diatas tetapi turut membangun brand equity (pp. 127-134). Sedangkan menurut Kim dan Kim (2004), brand equity meliputi 4 hal, antara lain loyalitas merek, perceived quality, citra merek, dan brand awareness

f you’re like most successful marketing executives, you understand just how crucial it is to build  brand equity. The emotional attachment that links consumers to your product, as opposed to any other, translates into steady cash flow and a fantastic public image, two key ingredients that solidify your company’s position as a market leader. While most advertisers would agree there are certain basic principles of product branding, each advertiser takes a slightly different approach when it comes to launching a marketing campaign. What follows here are the most widely used steps to build brand equity.

edit Steps 1. 1 Target your audience. The surest road to product failure is to try to be all things to all  people.

Ads by Google Masters in Marketing& Advertising, Top London School Career Service, Visa Support, Apply LSBF.org.uk/Marketing-Advertising o

Decide who are the most likely users of your product and develop marketing materials that speak exclusively to that group.

2. 2 Get the consumer’s attention. Here’s where a sound advertising strategy comes into  play. Your goal is to create public awareness and then build on that brand. You do this by getting consumers to notice that your product stands out from the rest. o o

Design an advertisement in the form of a mailer or an e-mailer. Alternatively, send out samples of a new product to a target group. Whichever  form you choose, make sure you’re making a great first impression.

3. 3 Make the public remember your brand. Your objective is to make consumers feel an emotional attachment to the brand. o

o

Plan your marketing campaign around the most distinctive feature of your   product, such as its authenticity, high cost or reliability. Design marketing materials that help consumers link to the brand by making them  perceive special benefits in your product that they cannot find in others. For example, advertisements for costly designer handbags create the impression that consumers who purchase them will look like Hollywood socialites. Consumers who view these advertisements accept that the distinctive feature of the handbags-high cost-creates added value that  boosts the image of anyone who buys them. 

4. 4 Build a solid brand image. Once again, consider your product’s special feature. Add to that the character of your company. Combine these two factors to reinforce an image of  the product that reflects favorably on its manufacturer or provider.

o

Pick one or two characteristics of your company and emphasize those in eve ry advertisement. Distinctive characteristics include excellent customer service, company executives who are renowned experts in a field or a commitment to social responsibility.

5. 5 Reinforce the brand image within the company. Make sure employees at every level of your organization work and behave in a way that reinforces your brand image. o

o

o

Design orientation programs that introduce new hires to your company’s brand image. Emphasize your brand image in all employee communications, such as brochures, employee manuals, a company intranet and corporate newsletters. Create incentives for employees at all levels who successfully communicate your   brand image to the public. For example, write an article in the company newsletter that showcases an employee who went beyond his stated job duties to assist a customer with an urgent request. 

nstinctively, every small business owner understands the importance of brand equity, even if  they may not be able to define the idea. Marketing-speak aside, brand equity is how your  customer recognizes why you are different and better than the alternative. Brand equity is built on that customer's direct experience with your product or service. This experience, repeated over time, creates equity or value in your brand. And it serves as a shorthand in the buyer's mind that separates you from everyone else. Brand equity is what creates loyalty that carries beyond price or the occasional product or service  bump in the road. It is the quality that motivates your customers to recommend their friends or  colleagues to you. Everyone wants brand equity. But building it, when you are more likely to qualify for the Inc. 500 rather than the Fortune 500, can be a puzzle. Particularly when the role models for brand equity are global icons like Coca Cola, Volvo, or Sony—hardly your peer set. The good news is that the path to building brand equity is clear. Here are five simple steps you can take to get started:

1. Clarify your position

The first step to building brand equity is to define your positioning: the single thing your  company stands for to your customers. Single is the operative word here. Good positioning forces hard choices.

To define your brand position, get the key leaders in your company together. Decide what makes you different and better than your competition. This might sound blindingly obvious, but most small businesses are too busy responding to customers or making pa yroll to do a lot of  introspection. You don't need an agency or consultant to get started. There are a couple of good exercises out there that you can do on your own. A simple one that I like is the Positioning XYZs: "We are the only X that solves Y problem in Z unique way." Where... •

• •

X is the category of the company, product, or service or other offering you've chosen to own. Y is the unmet need of your target audience. Z is the differentiation, advantage, or key positive distinction you have over your  competition.

2. Tell your story

Clear positioning is critical, but positioning statements are internal touchstones, not external expressions. Your next job is to make it interesting, to imbue the rational positioning with emotion. All brands are stories, and a good way to get started is to document and share your best corporate stories: the founding insight of the company, the times you went to extraordinary lengths to take care of a customer, or the background behind the big product breakthrough. The good news is that with ubiquitous broadband access and Web-based applications, it is within every company's grasp to share these stories more broadly through rich-media video and audio. B.Good (www.bgood.com), a small restaurant chain in Boston, has done this well. It's a burger   joint that promises "real food," positioning itself against the typical fast-food burger and experience. The real food story begins with the stories of the "real people," the founders whose corporate values are based on their experiences growing up at their uncle's restaurant. You' re reminded of these stories when you're in the restaurant or checking store hours online. 3. Bring it to life

Once you have the story, you need to bring it to life. Make sure that the way your company looks and feels to the outside world matches that truth. This leads to questions about your corporate identity: Do the basics (starting with your name and logo) make the impression you want? And your broader system for communicating to the market: Web site, brochures, your retail environment.

A client of mine talked about his Web site as a "corporate veil" that obscured what made the company special. Does your corporate identity reveal the best truth about your business, or does it hide it? 4. Start building brand before they buy

Think beyond the transaction. Brands begin at the transaction level, but the brand experience goes much deeper. The opportunity to create a brand impression starts long before the buying decision. The principle is a simple one: Give away an artifact of your brand for free. In the  professional services world, this means a taste of your service or your intellectual property. Here are two creative examples: Igor (www.igorinternational.com) is a naming consultancy based in San Francisco. It has built a methodology—and a client list that rivals those of much-larger branding agencies. That methodology is laid bare in a 100-page guide to naming that it gives away—without any registration requirements—on its Web site. This move is both generous, in the spirit of Web content "wanting to be free," and also incredibly shrewd. The naming guide is rich, detailed, and outlines a very clear process for naming. Igor  understands that giving away IP (intellectual property) doesn't cost it business—but it is its lead  business generator. It doesn't have to be just IP. Peet's (www.peets.com), the coffee retailer, allows customers to send their friends an "eCup," an email redeemable for a free cup of coffee. This is an ingenious way to enable the fiercely loyal customers of Peet's to p romote the brand themselves. 5. Measure your efforts

Here are a few direct ways to measure the progress of your brand: •

•

•

Ask your customers. Survey a subset of customers, prospective customers, and (ideally)  people who chose a competitor over you. You'll be surprised at how candid people will  be about your strengths—and your weaknesses. Make sure you ask the most important question in any customer research: Would you recommend us to a friend or colleague? Research (check out www.netpromoter.com) has shown that the willingness to recommend is the most important indicator of brand health. This research can be done quite cheaply online, using free or near-free tools like KeySurvey (www.keysurvey.com) or SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). Check your search rankings. I don't know all of what Igor measures, but I do know it fares very well in what is perhaps the most important measure of them all: organic search results. Type "product naming" on Google, and chances are you'll see Igor come up in the top three listings (the earned ones in the middle, not the paid ones on the top or side). Monitor the social media conversation. In most categories, consumers are holding a very active and candid conversation about the brands they love and hate. Check out what they're saying about you in blogs, bulletin boards, and vendor-rating Web sites (www.technorati.com or www.yelp.com are good places to start).

*** At the end of the day, brand value is tangible. If you're skeptical, take a look at Interbrand's annual survey of the world's most valuable brands. These companies start with a clear, focused position in the market. They have built a special relationship with customers that extends far beyond the product. And they exercise a fanatical discipline in how that brand position is communicated in the market. These are practices you don't need a billion dollar marketing budget to emulate. In fact, you can start today.

Read more: http://www.marketingprofs.com/articles/2008/2739/five-steps-to-building-brandequity-for-the-small-business#ixzz1I40CKKFj

 Brand equity refers to the marketing effects and outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name.

Because of the well known brand name the company some time charges premium prices from the consumer .[1][2][3][4]. And, at the root of these marketing effects is consumers' knowledge. In other words, consumers' knowledge about a brand makes manufacturers/advertisers respond differently or adopt appropriately adept measures for the marketing of the brand [5][6]. The study of brand equity is increasingly popular as some marketing researchers h ave concluded that  brands are one of the most valuable assets that a company has[7]. Brand equity is one of the factors which can increase the financial value of a brand to the brand owner, although not the only one [8]. Elements that can be included in the valuation of brand equity include (but not limited to): changing market share, profit margins, consumer recognition of logos and other  visual elements, brand language associations made by consumers, consumers' perceptions of  quality and other relevant brand values.

Contents [hide]

•

1 Measurement 2 Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity 3 Family branding vs. individual branding strategies 4 Examples 5 References

•

6 See also

• • • •

[edit] Measurement

There are many ways to measure a brand. Some measurements approaches are at the firm level, some at the product level, and still others are at the consumer level. Firm Level : Firm level approaches measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a calculation

is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derived by its market capitalization - and then subtract tangible assets and "measurable" intangible assets- the residual would be the brand equity.[7] One high  profile firm level approach is by the consulting firm Interbrand. To do its calculation, Interbrand estimates brand value on the basis of projected profits discounted to a present value. The discount rate is a subjective rate determined by Interbrand and Wall Street equity specialists and reflects the risk profile, market leadership, stability and global reach of the brand[9].  Product Level : The classic product level brand measurement example is to compare the price of 

a no-name or private label product to an "equivalent" branded product. The difference in price, assuming all things equal, is due to the brand[10]. More recently a revenue premium approach has  been advocated [4]. Consumer Level : This approach seeks to map the mind of the consumer to find out what

associations with the brand the consumer has. This approach seeks to measure the awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (the overall associations that the brand has). Free association tests and projective techniques are commonly used to uncover the tangible and intangible attributes, attitudes, and intentions about a brand[5]. Brands with high levels of  awareness and strong, favorable and unique associations are high equity brands[5]. All of these calculations are, at best, approximations. A more complete understanding of the  brand can occur if multiple measures are used.

[edit] Positive brand equity vs. negative brand equity This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009)

A brand equity is the positive effect of the brand on the difference between the prices that the consumer accepts to pay when the brand known compared to the value of the benefit received. There are two schools of thought regarding the existence of negative brand equity. One  perspective states brand equity cannot be negative, hypothesizing only positive brand equity is created by marketing activities such as advertising, PR, and promotion. A second perspective is that negative equity can exist, due to catastrophic events to the brand, such as a wide product recall or continued negative press attention (Blackwater or Halliburton, for example). Colloquially, the term "negative brand equity" may be used to describe a product or service where a brand has a negligible effect on a product level when compared to a no-name or private label product.

[edit] Family branding vs. individual branding strategies The greater a company's brand equity, the greater the probability that the company will use a family branding strategy rather than an individual branding strategy. This is because family  branding allows them to leverage the equity accumulated in the core brand. Aspects of brand equity includes: brand loyalty, awareness, association, and perception of quality .

[edit] Examples In the early 2000s in North America, the Ford Motor Company made a strategic decision to  brand all new or redesigned cars with names starting with "F". This aligned with the previous tradition of naming all sport utility vehicles since the Ford Explorer with the letter "E". The Toronto Star quoted an analyst who warned that changing the name of the well known Windstar  to the Freestar would cause confusion and discard brand equity built up, while a marketing manager believed that a name change would highlight the new redesign. The aging Taurus, which became one of the most significant cars in American auto history, would be abandoned in favor of three entirely new names, all starting with "F", the Five Hundred, Freestar and Fusion. By 2007, the Freestar was discontinued without a replacement. The Five Hundred name was thrown out and Taurus was brought back for the next generation of that car in a surprise move by Alan Mulally. "Five Hundred" was recognized by less than half of most people, but an overwhelming majority was familiar with the "Ford Taurus".

[edit] References ^ Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press ^ Keller, Kevin Lane (2003). “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of  Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600 ^ Leuthesser, L., C.S. Kohli and K.R. Harich (1995). “Brand Equity: The Halo 3. Effect Measure,” European Journal of Marketing, 29 (4), 57-66. ^ a b Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A Neslin (2003). 4. “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (October), 1-17 ^ a b c Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing 5. Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (January) 1-22 ^ Lassar, W., B. Mittal and A. Sharma (1995). “Measuring Customer-Based 6. Brand Equity,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (4), 11-19 ^ a b Neumeier, Marty (2006). The Brand Gap: How to Bridge the Distance 7. Between Business Strategy and Design, Berkekley, CA : New Riders Publishing. 8. ^ Grannell, Chris (2009). "Untangling Brand Equity, Value and Health", Brandchannel, Fall 2008 ^ Chu, Singfat and Hean Tat Keh (2006). “Brand Value Creation: Analysis of the 9. Interbrand-Business Week Brand Value Rankings,” Marketing Letters, 17, 323-331 10. ^ Aaker, David A. (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets,” California Management Review, 38 (Spring), 102-120. 1. 2.

10. Paul Kilburn ad Alfred Riachi Brands vs non Branded Strategies, Journal of Marketing p 23, (12,1 2008). Brand equity refers to the intangible value that accrues to a company as a result of its successful efforts to establish a strong brand. A brand is a name, symbol, or other feature that distinguishes the company's goods or services in the marketplace. Consumers often rely upon brands to guide their purchase decisions. The positive feelings consumers accumulate about a particular brand are what makes the brand a valuable asset for the company that owns it. Alan Mitchell of  Marketing Week described brand equity as "the storehouse of future profits which result from  past marketing activities." Many companies structure their marketing programs around building and preserving their brand equity. "To be a strong brand, a company must instill a clear, unwavering consumer perception of the distinctive emotional or functional benefits of its products and services," Duane E. Knapp explained in an article for  Risk Management . "At the end of the day, the brand is the sum total of  the consumer's impressions about the product and service. The less distinctive these impressions, the greater the risk that a competitor's products or services may gain a stronger perception—and competitive advantage."

BUILDING BRAND EQUITY The basis of brand equity lies in the relationship that develops between a consumer and the company selling the products or services under the brand name. A consumer who prefers a  particular brand basically agrees to select that brand over others based primarily on his or her   perception of the brand and its value. The consumer will reward the brand owner with dollars, almost assuring future cash flows to the company, as long as his or her brand preference remains intact. The buyer may even pay a higher price for the company's goods or services because of his commitment, or passive agreement, to buy the brand. In return for the buyer's brand loyalty, the company essentially assures the buyer that the product will confer the benefits associated with, and expected from, the brand. In order to benefit from the consumer relationship allowed by branding, a company must  painstakingly strive to earn and maintain brand loyalty. Building a brand requires the company to gain name recognition for its product, get the consumer to actually try its brand, and then convince the buyer that the brand is acceptable. Only after those triumphs can the company hope to secure some degree of preference for its brand.  Name awareness is a critical factor in achieving brand success. Companies may spend vast sums of money and effort just to attain recognition of a new brand. But getting consumers to recognize a brand name is only half the battle in building brand equity. It is also important for the company to establish strong, positive associations with the brand and its use in the minds of consumers. The first step in building brand equity is for the company to define itself and what it hopes to represent for consumers. The next step is to make sure that all aspects of the company's operations support this image, from its product and service o fferings to its marketing programs to its customer service policies. When all of these elements support a distinctive image of the company and its products in the minds of consumers, the company has established brand equity.

MEASURING AND PROTECTING BRAND EQUITY Although measuring brand equity can be difficult, it can also provide managers with a good indication of their company's future profitability. "Companies which develop good measures of  their brand equity have an early warning indicator of likely future profit trends, and can get a much better feel of the dangers of short-termism," Mitchell noted. "If brand equity is falling, you're storing up trouble for yourself…. If brand equity is rising, you're investing in future  performance, even if it's not showing through in profits today. Real business performance therefore equals short-term results plus shifts in brand equity." Unfortunately, measuring brand equity is not as simple as counting the number of people who recognize a brand name or symbol. It is also dangerous to assume that simply because its brand is well-known, a company enjoys strong or growing brand equity. In fact, the most powerful  brands can easily be diluted by company missteps or inconsistent marketing messages. Mitchell explained that the best way to measure brand equity depends on the particular company and its industry. For example, in some cases assessing consumer perceptions of product quality may  provide the best indication of brand equity. In other cases, more traditional business measures such as customer satisfaction or market share may be more closely correlated with brand equity. Finding an appropriate measure of brand equity is vital in order for companies to ensure that they  protect this valuable asset. In his Risk Management article, Knapp claims that managers must remain constantly vigilant to protect their brand equity, since a declining brand image poses a significant risk to company earnings. If a brand loses its distinctive image in the minds of  consumers, then the branded product becomes more like a commodity and must compete on the  basis of price rather than value. Customer loyalty decreases, which has a corresponding negative effect on market share and profit margins. In order to prevent this decline, Knapp recommends that companies consider the impact of major decisions on consumer perceptions and brand equity. Every action taken by management—including the introduction of new products or  advertising strategies, or the decision to lay off employees or relocate a factory—should be assessed for its effect on brand equity.

TRANSFERRING BRAND EQUITY ONLINE Companies often seek to leverage their brand equity by transferring consumers'positive associations with a brand to a related product or service. In the late 1990s, many companies attempted to extend their brands into the field of electronic commerce. But doing business online  proved difficult even for established businesses with popular brands. "Think branding an offline  business is tough? It's nothing compared with creating a brand for your company's electronic offshoot," Rochelle Garner declared in an article for Sales and Marketing Management. "That's  because b-to-b [business-to-business] brands are built brick by independent brick with cu stomer  service, support, and quality—and are cemented by personal relationships. In the offline world, those relationships are forged by a sales force that calls o n customers face-to-face. Successful online brands must deliver those same elements, and more, through the use of technology."

Garner outlined a series of steps for companies to take in creating a successful online brand. First, the company must decide whether or not to use its offline brand name in its new online venture. This strategy may prove effective in cases where the online business is a straightforward extension of the existing brand, but it may also have the effect of diluting the brand equity. Second, Garner says that companies should develop an understanding of the benefits they want to deliver through the online business and assess how technology can help in this mission. Third, she emphasizes that companies should try to understand customers'expectations for the online  business and the brand. Finally, she recommends that companies find ways to use Internet technology to create a rewarding shopping or purchase experience for their customers. Overall, according to Garner, the key to extending a brand online is using technology to enhance the buying experience for customers. After all, the Internet o ffers sellers a number of new ways to service their customers' needs, including bringing together buyers and sellers from all over the world, offering instant electronic customer support, creating new production efficiencies, and reducing order time and costs. When companies can take advantage of Internet technology to improve their relationships with their customers, moving the business online can only increase their brand equity.

FURTHER READING: Berry, Leonard L. "Cultivating Service Brand Equity." Journal of the Academy of Marketing  Science. Winter 2000. Garner, Rochelle. "A Brand by Any Other Name." Sales and Marketing Management. October  2000. Knapp, Duane E. "Brand Equity." Risk Management. September 1999. Mitchell, Alan. "Why Brand Equity Is the True Measure of Success." Marketing Week. August 3, 2000. "The Name of the Game: Managing Brands as Strategic Assets." International Journal of Retail  and Distribution Management. June-July 1998. Yoo, Boonghee, Naveen Donthu, and Sungho Lee. "An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Spring 2000.

Read more: Brand Equity - advantage, benefits, Building brand equity, Measuring and protecting  brand equity http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Bo-Co/BrandEquity.html#ixzz1I41Ugv9W

4 Steps to Create Brand Equity  by Assistant on October 9, 2009 Small and large businesses alike know how important brand equity is in today’s overcrowded market. They know this even if they do not know exactly what it entails. Brand equity is the outcome related to how your customer would recognize your difference from competitors and why you are the better alternative. It is the value of your brand to the customer. Brand equity stems from the customer’s experiences with your product or service. When a customer has used your product over and over again, that builds equity, or value, in your brand. Your value to the customer is what separates you from your competition. It is what makes customers loyal to your brand and motivates them to refer to their friends. Many try to create the level of brand equity those great companies like Coca-Cola and Sony have. It takes hard work to get to that level, but it is not impossible, especially when you implement the following steps in your marketing plan. 1. Define your positioning. This is the one thing your company stands for in the minds of your  customers. You need to clarify your positioning in the market among your competitors. “One” is the important word here. You must define your brand position with just one element. Ask  yourself and your employees, what is the one thing that makes you different and better than the competition? 2. Let everyone know your story and bring it to life. Position statements are often internal statements that need to be made external. The way to do that is by telling a story. Document your   best corporate stories, which are likely to come from the founder, that best reflect your   positioning statement. Cracker Barrel, a well-known restaurant that serves “old country” food and has “old country” stores that shelve nostalgic brands of candy in nostalgic wrappers, is positioned to bring that old country feeling back to people. Everything about their restaurants and stores reminds people of a time long gone. Their Web site and their menus tell the story of how the first store and restaurant opened in Tennessee in the 1960s to give travelers a place to get a good meal and pick up candy for their kids on their way home. These old time stores often had a barrel of saltine crackers that the community members would gather around to visit with friends. Therefore, Cracker Barrel w as born and its story is told through the menus, Web site and everything that is in the store, down to the old look of the labels on the candy and other products. Cracker Barrel tells its story in text on its Web site and in everything. It does in its stores, including the label printing. 3. Build the brand before the transaction. Before the customer gets to the cash register, or even to the store, start branding. The easiest way to do this is to give something away that has your   branding on it. It does not have to be something big; it could be a free notepad at the door or 

even an email coupon for a free item in customers’ email inboxes. As long as the coupon has your logo and elements of your brand on it, it counts toward building your brand equity. 4. Measure efforts. You can simply ask customers when they come into your store what they think of your brand, or you can do some research on your own. You can send out surveys to customers and prospects in the area or you can check the social media conversations going on about your brand. Consumers are quite active on forums, blogs and chats, especially when they are unhappy about a product or service, so check out what people are saying about you online. Vendor-rating Web site Technorati and Yelp are great places to start. By implementing these steps, the road to building brand equity will be a lot smoother and a lot shorter. In addition, the great thing about these steps is that you can get started on that road today. Katie Marcus writes about the label printing technologies used by businesses for their marketing and advertising campaigns.  Katie Marcus writes information about  printing company and printing technologies.  Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/branding-articles/4-steps-to-create-brand-equity1321911.html 

Brand Equity Many researches tried to define the concept of Brand Equity. Initial definition characterized it as the added value the brand gains as a result of investing in a  branded marketing (Aaker 1991; Farquhar 1989 Srivastava and Shocker 1991 & Lutz (2002) Moore, Wilkie ). Yoo , Donthu &, Lee (2000) defines brand equity as the equity differences between two similar   products. This definition deals with two brands gaining the same utility benefits, with a different  brand name. This brand name gives the product its unreal benefits. Herman ( 2001)as well defines brand equity as benefits that are above the products utilities. Those are psychological advantages (defined by the consumer itself), social advantages and even experience benefits. Herman gives an example by mentioning the Coca Cola test- The difference the consumer  experienced while tasting a glass of Coca Cola from a transparent glass, when the drinkers did not know the name of the drink, and the different experience they had while drinking from a Coca Cola bottle. Same drink, same glass, brand name was exposed in one of the options. Many researches demonstrated that the glass poured from the Coca Cola bottle was tastier than the other (Herman, 2000). Those definitions are not contradicting and all of following definitions by Yoo , Donthu &, Lee (2000), Herman (2000) and Yoo , Donthu &, Lee (2000)are adding a new aspect by associating  brand equity with all unreal benefits in a brand. Many studies dealt with the need for brand equity, a concept that became a leading marketing

concept in the past 20 years, all in order to answer the question of how to create a positive image, expand the brand into new categories and build brand loyalty (Aaker & Joachimstahler, 2000).  New technologies and new marketing methods are giving the consumer a better access to knowledge, more options and less switching expenses, all of those are contributing to the need in  brand equity.Today, consumers satisfaction is not determined only by the real utilities the  product has, but also by the advantages given by the brands equity benefits. Brands that do not have future brand equity can suffer from lack of loyalty and a small target market (Schreuer,2000). According to Herman (2000), brand equity creates income steadiness, this gives the distributor  time to patch up things in case of market changes. This gives the brand the ability to be more than the product itself and justify a higher price and constant preference by consumers. Faircolth , Capella & Alford (2001) analyses different aspects in b rand equity while using empiric research and Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) modules. Those modules demonstrate viewpoint influence and brand image on brand equity. Researches show that brand equity can be manipulative, by using association elements and different signs that can influence the brand image, and by doing so influence the brand equity. Moore , Wilkie & Lutz (2002)studied whether brand equity can stay for long, meaning, can you  pass brand equity from one generation to another. In order to study the subject, they preformed 2 researches. The study showed that brand equity can sometime pass from on generation to another, and sometimes not. This result is due to changes in brand equity due to new influences in the consumer’s life cycle: environment, work   place, social status, etc. Myers(2003) defines another important aspect , in a study preformed in the USA, Myers studied the equity of nine leading brands in the soft drinks segment. The study findings demonstrate that  brand equity is one of the most important factors that influence the consumer in each acquisition decision. In light of multiple competitors in the market it was found that real equity and unreal equity was considered important for building brand image and acquisition intentions. Also, it was found that  brand name is more important than brand’s utilities functions. Wee & Ming (2003)supported Myers (2003) and indicated that in a competitive world like ours,  brand equity is based on symbolic values. Distributors create brands with symbolic values and “personality”, and while doing so, they  become part of the consumer’s life. This branding procedure creates in the consumer’s mind a  personal relationship between him and the brand itself. In the empiric study, done by the researches, it was found that symbolic values are more important than operative values of the product. The study shows, just like Myers (2003) study, the importance of unreal equity. Distributors can not relay on operational benefits any more, but, they need to create symbolic benefit and experience to the brand. For example: BMW is considered as a product that provides youthful and success values. Steven N. Silverman, David E. Sprott, Vincent J. Pascal (1999), "RELATING CONSUMERBASED SOURCES OF BRAND EQUITY TO MARKET OUTCOMES", in Advances in

Consumer Research Volume 26, eds. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 352-358. Advances in Consumer Research Volume 26, 1999

Pages 352-358

RELATING CONSUMER-BASED SOURCES OF BRAND EQUITY TO MARKET OUTCOMES Steven N. Silverman, Washington State University David E. Sprott, Washington State University Vincent J. Pascal, Washington State University [The authors thank the editors and three anaonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.] ABSTRACT Among scholars and practitioners, there is some agreement on the concept of brand equity. Yet measuring this construct is less clear. This project considers how various measures of brand value relate to one another. Study 1 compares market-based outcomes (i.e., Financial World  ratings, and annual sales) with consumer-based sources of b rand value (i.e., familiarity, usage, and evaluation). Study 2 uses affinity analysis to examine how consumers’ brand associations differentiate market leaders from followers. Study 1 found a weak relationship between measures, whereas the rich results of Study 2 are encouraging for both scholars and managers. Researchers have studied and measured " brand equity" from both the organizational (e.g., Simon and Sullivan 1993) and customer (e.g., Keller 1993; Krishnan 1996) perspectives. Re cently, Keller (1998) used a customer-based definition of brand eqity to distinguish sources of brand equity held in consumer knowledge structures (i.e., customer-based brand equity), from marketplace outcomes of brand equity (i.e., market-based brand equity). [There are many "sources" of brand equity (including consumer cognitions, manage ment creativity, corporate structure, etc.) that may ultimately impact market-based outcomes. The present pape r focuses on consumer-based sources of equity--a view modeled after Keller (1993).] The relationship, however, between customer-based and market-based measures of brand equity remains unclear  (although Krishnan [1996] has studied the question). This paper presents two empirical studies that explore this issue. Study 1 compares consumer based measures of brand awarenessCincluding familiarity, favorability, and direct experienceCto market outcomes of brand value (annual sales, and the Financial World’s measure of brand value). Study 2 then introduces a new method called affinity analysis to examine how brand imageCstrength, uniqueness, and favorability of brand associations (Keller 1993)Cmay differentiate between two market-leading brands. MEASURING BRAND EQUITY

Brand equity has emerged as an important issue in marketing research (e.g., Aaker 1991; Ke ller  1993; Keller 1998). Much of the extant work has been aimed at defining and measuring brand equity. As Keller (1998) notes, most discussions of brand equity consider it to be "the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand" (p. 42). His own definition captures this distinction: "customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand," (Keller 1993, p.8). While Keller’s (1993) view recognizes the marketplace impact of brand equity, he clearly places the locus of brand equity within the consumer. Alternatively, others have focused on the marketplace valuation of a brand (e.g., comparative approaches, evaluation approaches, holistic methods [see Keller 1998]). This situation has led to the development of numerous measures of   brand equity (e.g., Kamakura and Russell 1993; Simon and Sullivan 1993). Some researchers suggest that brand equity measures should rely on market-based, objective, measures because consumer attitude and preference measures are inherently subjective (Simon and Sullivan 1993). Others contend that for a brand to have value it must be valued by consumers, hence their views must be included (Keller 1993). We consider both of these approaches, and explore how they are related to one another. Consumer Sources of Brand Equity Conceptualizations of brand equity based on consumer sources typically fall into two categories: those involving consumer behaviors (e.g., Kamakura and Russell’s [1993] analyses using scanner data) and those involving consumer cognition (e.g., Keller 1993). Our focus is on the latter. This view suggests that brand equity arises from the strength and favorability of the two components of consumer-based brand knowledge structures: brand awareness and brand image.  Brand awareness relates to the strength of a brand in memory, and the likelihood and ease with which the brand will be recognized or recalled under various conditions. Brand image is defined as " perceptions about the brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory" Keller (1993 pg. 3). Following an associative network model of memory, brand associations are the myriad nodes that are linked to the brand in memory (i.e., product related attributes, price, user and usage imagery, and so on). Market Outcomes of Brand Equity Most market-based measures of brand equity are related to some aspect of market performance. For example, valuation approaches measure brand equity from brand-related financial data (e.g., sales, assets), or changes in stock price (Simon and Sullivan 1993). Another financial method (used in the present research) was developed by Interbrand, a marketing consultng organization, and adapted by Financial World . These similar valuations first determine the earnings for a  brand, and then adjust that figure with a brand-strength multiplier consisting of seven brandrelated factors: leadership, stability, market environment, internationality, trend, communications support, and legal protection (Ourusoff 1994). Relating Consumer Sources and Market Outcomes of Brand Equity

Using Keller’s (1993) model, consumer-based sources of brand equity should relate to market based outcomes. As Keller (1993) notes: "high levels of brand awareness and positive brand image should increase the probability of brand choice, as well as produce greater consumer (and retailer) loyalty and decrease vulnerability to marketing actions," (p. 8). In other words, if  consumer perceptions of brands are reflected by purchase decisions, then the measures of those  perceptions should also correlate with market-based outcomes. STUDY 1: RELATING BRAND AWARENESS TO MARKET OUTCOMES The objective of Study 1 was to learn how brand awarenessCassessed by familiarity, usage and favorability (Keller 1993)Cis related to market-based outcomes of brand valueCmeasured by annual sales and Financial World brand ratings (Ourusoff 1994). (The Financial World and Interbrand valuations are quite similar to one another. For a detailed discussion see Keller 1998.) Study 1 Method Sample and Procedure. The brands (n=196) used in the study were among those included in  Financial World (Ourusoff 1994) and spanned 19 product categories. Brands were randomly assigned to fourteen groups of fourteen brands each. Respondents (361 undergraduate business students) were randomly assigned one of the fourteen brand groups to evaluate. Brand names (four per page) were presented in a larger font with bold type. After the data were collected, the number of brands was reduced to only those targeted toward the population studied. Ultimately, 92 (85) brands were used for the 1993 (1995) analyses presented here. [The final set of 92 brands included frequently purchased non-durable goods of which the target market included Study 1's student subjects. This adjustment was made based on a suggestion by reviewers. Brands were included in the final set on the basis of their availability in stores directly on campus. Results changed only modestly and primarily reflected lower variance in familiarity with brands, as would be expected.] Consumer-Based Measures. Brand familiarity (i.e., recognition) was measured by asking, "Have you ever heard of this brand name?" Brand usage was determined by asking, "Have you ever  used this brand before?" Respondents answered YES, NO, or NOT SURE to each question. Two measures were then calculated for the analysis: (1) "familiarity" is the percent of the sample indicating that they had heard of the brand, and (2) "usage" is the percent of the sample that reported hearing of the brand and had used it.

Brand favorability was assessed by a three-item scale (Cox and Cox 1988). Respondents were asked, "How would you evaluate this brand regarding the following adjective pairs?" Responses were recorded on three, nine-point scales (anchored by "Bad" and "Good"; "Dislike Very Much" and "Like Very Much"; "Unpleasant" and "Pleasant"). The three-item scale was averaged to form a "favorability" measure for subjects reporting they had heard of the brand; this value was calculated for each brand (alphas ranged from 0.65 to 0.99 for individual brands; average alpha=0.93). Market-Based Measures. The two market-based measures (for 1993 and 1995) were sales and  brand valuation figures as presented by Financial World (Badenhausen 1996; Ourusoff 1994).

 Financial World’s brand value formula (Keller 1998), similar to the Interbrand formula, is based on profits related to the brand adjusted for the brand’s strength (defined by Interbrand’s sevenfactors). Our use of  Financial World’s brand valuation is based on the availability of thedata and the overall acceptance and use of this measure (cf. Keller 1998). In order to account for  differences in brand values and sales across product categories, the data were standardized within  product categories.

Study 1 Analyses and Results Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between all pairs of 1993 and 1995 market based (i.e., brand value ratings and sales) and consumer-based (i.e., evaluation, familiarity, and usage) measures of brand equity. The results of the correlational analysis indicate that the focal measures of brand value are weakly correlated with one another (see Table). Study 1 Discussion The findings of Study 1 suggest that favorability and usage are the consumer measures most closely associated to market-outcomes of brand equity. In both cases, small, positive, and significant relationships are found. Because the market-based measures are #holistic’ (cf. Keller  1998), the fact that any significant correlation is found is encouraging and suggests the need for a deeper understanding of the relationships between consumer sources and market-based outcomes of brand equity. On the face of it, it is somewhat surprising that familiarity, based on recognition, was not more highly correlated with marketplace success, especially when considering the extent to which this measure is recommended for assessing brand value (cf. Keller 1998). However, further  evaluation shows that on average, 95.3 % of subjects had heard of each brand in the study. Hence, regardless of a brand’s sales or value it is known to the sample. Here, familiarity offers little insight. Moreover, measuring brand familiarity is not recommended when subjects are familiar with most brands in a category. In markets where this is c ommon (e.g., airlines, gasoline, automobiles) familiarity may not be useful in relating consumer knowledge to market value. Finally, one of the more interesting findings is the comparable performance of brand value and sales. Based on our study, it appears that Financial World measures offer minimal advantages over raw sales figures. This result suggests sales may, at some level, be a useful way of capturing  brand value. STUDY 2: RELATING BRAND IMAGE TO MARKET OUTCOMES In Study 2 we examine the relationship between category position (a market-based distinction on whether the brand is first or second in a particular category) and brand image (the other  component in Keller’s [1993] brand knowledge model, assessed by the favorability, uniqueness, and strength of brand associations). Category Position

Research and marketplace examples demonstrate the importance of being a market leader. CocaCola, Nike, and Tylenol, first in their product category, hold a unique position in the marketplace, and presumably in the minds of consumers. Many benefits, including long-term financial strength (Collins and Porras 1994), accrue to brand leaders. Yet as Collins and Porras (1994) point out, secondary brands are not failures by almost any measure. Nevertheless, they are often unable to overtake the primary brands that they follow. Studying brand image among category leaders may help explain why they are so formidable. For present purposes, market  position (either first or second in a category) can be viewed as a dichotomous, market-based measure of brand equity. When viewed from this perspective, assuming a correspondence  between this market-based measure and consumer knowledge structures, we would expect a high correspondence between consumers’ brand associations and market leadership. Study 2 Method The sample (n=119) included the same undergraduate business students from Study 1; however, Study 2 data were collected two months later. The focal brands for Study 2 included the first and second brands for soft drinks (i.e., Coca-Cola and Pepsi) and over-the-counter medications (i.e., Tylenol and Advil) as identified by Financial World rankings (Ourusoff 1994, Badenhausen 1996). Brand associations were obtained via a thought listing task asking participants to write down "all of the thoughts that come to mind when you think of the following brand." Subjects then rated the valence of each thought on a 7-point scale (-3 to 3). TABLE RESULTS OF STUDY 1 -- PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG MEASURES OF BRAND VALUE Study 2 Analysis Each brand was considered by 30 subjects (except one for which there were 29 subjects). A range of 1 to 19 associations were provided by each subject (median=5). A mean of 143 brand associations were generated for each brand. These associations were then analyzed by several coders using affinity analysis, a process which generates an "affinity diagram" (see Figures 1 and 2). [It is important to note that these diagrams are neither mental maps (Zaltman, LeMasters, and Heffring 1982) nor node-arc associative representations. They are cluster representations based upon jointly shared perceptions of affinity among the items presented. Their visual organization is otherwise arbitrary.] The affinity method Coriginally developed to study facts, opinions, or  ideas of a complex nature using verbal data (Futami 1986, Silverman and Silverman 1994)Callows one to form groupings (i.e., base clusters) of verbal data based on the mutual affinity among the items. Affinity analysis is conceptually akin to a statistically-based cluster  analysis or factor analysis, and is functionally similar to card-sorting techniques. Unlike cardsorting, however, the diagram is created using groups of people (external coders or subjects). Because the result must be acceptable to all who are coding the data, this method can generate additional insight that does not emerge from an individual level analysis.

More specifically, the affinity diagram process proceeded as follows. First, ideas associated with a given brand were transferred to Post-it7 notes and placed on the wall of the research lab. Next, the Post-it7 notes were arranged by coding teams ranging from three to six members. The groups worked in silence (a rule of this method) to create base clusters of participant responses based on the affinity of the ideas on the Post-it7 notes (represented by unshaded boxes in Figures 1 and 2). Following silent organization of ideas, coding disagreements were discussed and resolved. Finally, similar base clusters were grouped together to form mid-level clusters (represented by shaded boxes in Figures 1 and 2), to which descriptive terms were then assigned. Although each  brand in this study was analyzed separately by the researchers and several assistants, similar  mid-level clusters emerged for individual brands. Thus, similar labels were then ap plied to midlevel clusters (where appropriate) to aid in cross-brand comparisons. Each brand’s affinity diagram took approximately one hour to create (three to six human hours). Each brand affinity diagram was later reviewed for completeness, clarity, and consistency by at least one additional coder. In our adaptation of the affinity diagram process, we have added a feature to allow for the assessment of brand favorability, strength, and uniqueness (Keller 1998). Using the brand associations and favorability ratings, we calculated two measures for each of the base clusters (unshaded boxes). First, we calculated the mean valence for all comments in a cluster. This calculation is designed to capture the relative "favorability" associated with the cluster. Next, we counted the number of responses in a given base cluster. We interpret this value as an indication of the "strength" with which the associations in the cluster are present across the sample. A larger  number of associations in a given cluster Cand the underlying cognitive structure it presumably reflectsCsuggests greater strength. These values representing favorability and strength are reported in the unshaded boxes in Figures 1 and 2 (strength figures are in parentheses). Where meaningful, the strength vlues in these unshaded boxes been have been aggregated and labeled (e.g., "ad themes" in the Coca-Cola and Pepsi diagrams).  Next, more aggregate indices of brand strength and favorability were calculated. Specifically, consistent with basic multiattribute attitude models, consumer beliefs and evaluations of those  beliefs were used to calculate a strength x favorability product for each of the base clusters (i.e., the unshaded boxes). These values were then summed to form "mid-level cluster values" (reported in the arrows emanating from the center of each diagram). These mid-level cluster  values were then aggregated to create an "overall cluster value" (reported in the center of each diagram). Using this approach, strong associations are represented by larger numbers, and  positive or negative values indicate associated valence. Finally, we turn to see how brand uniqueness is reflected in the affinity diagrams. Because base clusters emerge from the data, differences between brands can emerge in two ways. First, certain  base clusters and mid-level clusters may appear within one brand and not another, and thus identify an element of uniqueness (which can be further interpreted using the cluster values to assess strength and favorability). Second, when similar base clusters or mid-level clusters emerge for different brands one could compare the associated values to assess which brand has a relative,  possibly unique, strength. Study 2 Results

Brand affinity diagrams were used to generate the assessments of brand image strength and uniqueness of association within each brand. Each brand was analyzed and interpreted by several researchers. Due to space limitations, we will present "highlights" of the analyses. The results considered here are based on Figures 1 and 2. Soft Drinks. Coca-Cola and Pepsi clearly have different brand market values for 1993 as reported  by Financial WorldC$35.95 billion and $4.94 billion, respectively. Overall cluster values for  Coca-Cola (199.50) and Pepsi(83.52) are consistent with the overall market performance of those  brands, and are significantly different from one another, t=4.60, p.55.

A comparison for mid-level clusters is instructive and shows that the strength x favorability calculation gives Coca-Cola dominance on every dimension except for that labeled "competitors." A closer examination of the "competitors" mid-level cluster finds that the Pepsi associations are actually positive statements about Coke. Hence, this dimension also reflects a relative strength and preference for Coke. Uniqueness in each brand can be assessed using the two perspectives described earlier. First we look to identify associations that are held in one brand and not another. Starting with the midlevel clusters, we find that in this pair of brands, there are almost no differences. Only a "miscellaneous" category in the Pepsi affinity diagram distinguishes the two. In this sense there are no obvious points of uniqueness between the brands. This might be expected given the headto-head strategies used by these competitors.  Next we look for uniqueness in the extent to which a given brand "clearly dominates" the other. First, the strongest indication of uniqueness is found in the "consumer-related" mid-level cluster  where Coke receives a 32.99 mid-level cluster value compared with a -9.80 for Pepsi; a 42.79  point spread. This difference is significant (t=4.07, p